Jackson v. Cowell ( 1997 )

USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 96-1813



                                   ANTHONY JACKSON,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                                 ANN COWELL, ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                      [Hon. Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Judge]
___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                               Selya, Boudin and Lynch,

                                   Circuit Judges.
______________



                                 ____________________



            Anthony Jackson on brief pro se.
_______________

            Nancy  Ankers  White,  Special  Assistant  Attorney  General,  and
____________________

        Richard  C.  McFarland,  Senior  Litigation  Attorney,  Department  of
______________________

        Correction, on brief for appellees.





                                 ____________________



                                   January 31, 1997

                                 ____________________



































                      Per  Curiam.     Plaintiff brought  a civil  action
___________



            under 42 U.S.C.    1983, alleging that he was  transferred to



            Old Colony  Correctional Center ("OCCC")  in retaliation  for



            his litigation activities, and  that prison officials at OCCC



            interfered in  various ways  with his  access to  the courts.



            Following substantial discovery,  the magistrate  recommended



            granting defendants' motion  for summary judgment.  Plaintiff



            objected,  and  the  district  judge undertook  an  extensive



            review.  In a detailed memorandum opinion the court concluded



            that plaintiff's proof  failed to create  a genuine issue  of



            fact as to  one or more of the elements  necessary to sustain



            each of his claims.



                      Upon  a  de novo  review  of the  judgment  and the
__ ____



            issues raised in the parties' briefs, we affirm substantially
______



            for  the reasons stated in the district court's opinion.  See
___



            Loc. R. 27.1.











































                                         -2-